skip to main content
research-article

An analysis of fake social media engagement services

Published: 01 January 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Fake engagement services allow users of online social media and other web platforms to illegitimately increase their online reach and boost their perceived popularity. Driven by socio-economic and even political motivations, the demand for fake engagement services has increased in the last years, which has incentivized the rise of a vast underground market and support infrastructure. Prior research in this area has been limited to the study of the infrastructure used to provide these services (e.g., botnets) and to the development of algorithms to detect and remove fake activity in online targeted platforms. Yet, the platforms in which these services are sold (known as panels) and the underground markets offering these services have not received much research attention. To fill this knowledge gap, this paper studies Social Media Management (SMM) panels, i.e., reselling platforms—often found in underground forums—in which a large variety of fake engagement services are offered. By daily crawling 86 representative SMM panels for 4 months, we harvest a dataset with 2.8 M forum entries grouped into 61k different services. This dataset allows us to build a detailed catalog of the services for sale, the platforms they target, and to derive new insights on fake social engagement services and its market. We then perform an economic analysis of fake engagement services and their trading activities by automatically analyzing 7k threads in underground forums. Our analysis reveals a broad range of offered services and levels of customization, where buyers can acquire fake engagement services by selecting features such as the quality of the service, the speed of delivery, the country of origin, and even personal attributes of the fake account (e.g., gender). The price analysis also yields interesting empirical results, showing significant disparities between prices of the same product across different markets. These observations suggest that the market is still undeveloped and sellers do not know the real market value of the services that they offer, leading them to underprice or overprice their services.

References

[1]
Abadi, M., Agarwal, A., Barham, P., Brevdo, E., Chen, Z., Citro, C., Corrado, G. S., Davis, A., Dean, J., Devin, M., Ghemawat, S., Goodfellow, I., Harp, A., Irving, G., Isard, M., Jia, Y., Jozefowicz, R., Kaiser, L., Kudlur, M., Levenberg, J., Mané, D., Monga, R., Moore, S., Murray, D., Olah, C., Schuster, M., Shlens, J., Steiner, B., Sutskever, I., Talwar, K., Tucker, P., Vanhoucke, V., Vasudevan, V., Viégas, F., Vinyals, O., Warden, P., Wattenberg, M., Wicke, M., Yu, Y., Zheng, X., 2015. TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems. Software available from tensorflow.org. https://www.tensorflow.org/.
[2]
H. Aghakhani, A. Machiry, S. Nilizadeh, C. Kruegel, G. Vigna, Detecting deceptive reviews using generative adversarial networks, 2018 IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW), IEEE, 2018, pp. 89–95.
[3]
Amazon.com,. Alexa - top sites. [Online] Last Accessed 16 December 2021. https://www.alexa.com/topsites.2021
[4]
A. Bessi, E. Ferrara, Social bots distort the 2016 U.S. presidential election online discussion, First Monday 21 (2016),.
[5]
Beutel, A., Xu, W., Guruswami, V., Palow, C., Faloutsos, C., 2013. Copycatch: stopping group attacks by spotting lockstep behavior in social networks. pp. 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1145/2488388.2488400.
[6]
R. Bhalerao, M. Aliapoulios, I. Shumailov, S. Afroz, D. McCoy, Mapping the underground: supervised discovery of cybercrime supply chains, 2019 APWG Symposium on Electronic Crime Research (eCrime), 2019, pp. 1–16,.
[7]
Y. Boshmaf, D. Logothetis, G. Siganos, J. Lera, J. Lorenzo, M. Ripeanu, K. Beznosov, H. Halawa, Ntegro: leveraging victim prediction for robust fake account detection in large scale OSNs, Comput. Secur. 61 (2016) 142–168,.
[8]
Y. Boshmaf, I. Muslukhov, K. Beznosov, M. Ripeanu, Design and analysis of a social botnet, Comput. Netw. 57 (2) (2013) 556–578,.
[9]
L. Caruccio, D. Desiato, G. Polese, Fake account identification in social networks, 2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), 2018, pp. 5078–5085,.
[10]
G. Cascavilla, D.A. Tamburri, W.-J. Van Den Heuvel, Cybercrime threat intelligence: a systematic multi-vocal literature review, Comput. Secur. 105 (2021) 102258,.
[11]
B. Collier, R. Clayton, A. Hutchings, D. Thomas, Cybercrime is (often) boring: infrastructure and alienation in a deviant subculture, Br. J. Criminol. 61 (5) (2021) 1407–1423.
[12]
De Cristofaro, E., Friedman, A., Jourjon, G., Kaafar, M. A., Shafiq, M., 2014. Paying for likes? Understanding facebook like fraud using honeypots.
[13]
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., Toutanova, K., 2019. Bert: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv:1810.04805.
[14]
B. Dupont, A.-M. Côté, C. Savine, D. Décary-Hétu, The ecology of trust among hackers, Global Crime 17 (2) (2016) 129–151.
[15]
M.J. Farooq, Q. Zhu, Modeling, analysis, and mitigation of dynamic botnet formation in wireless IoT networks, IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 14 (9) (2019) 2412–2426.
[16]
S. Farooqi, Á. Feal, T. Lauinger, D. McCoy, Z. Shafiq, N. Vallina-Rodriguez, Understanding incentivized mobile app installs on google play store, Proceedings of the ACM Internet Measurement Conference, 2020, pp. 696–709.
[17]
Q. Fu, B. Feng, D. Guo, Q. Li, Combating the evolving spammers in online social networks, Comput. Secur. 72 (2018) 60–73,.
[18]
H. Gao, J. Hu, C. Wilson, Z. Li, Y. Chen, B.Y. Zhao, Detecting and characterizing social spam campaigns, Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2010, pp. 35–47,.
[19]
A. Hutchings, S. Pastrana, Understanding ewhoring, 2019 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P), IEEE, 2019, pp. 201–214.
[20]
Jiang, M., Cui, P., Beutel, A., Faloutsos, C., Yang, S., 2014. Inferring strange behavior from connectivity pattern in social networks. vol. 8443. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06608-0_11.
[21]
G. Kambourakis, C. Kolias, A. Stavrou, The Mirai botnet and the IoT Zombie Armies, MILCOM 2017 - 2017 IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM), 2017, pp. 267–272,.
[22]
Y. Li, O. Martinez, X. Chen, Y. Li, J.E. Hopcroft, In a world that counts: clustering and detecting fake social engagement at scale, Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web, International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Republic and Canton of Geneva, CHE, 2016, pp. 111–120,.
[23]
C. Lieber, The dirty business of buying Instagram followers, Retrieved May 31 (2014) 2019.
[24]
E.-P. Lim, V.-A. Nguyen, N. Jindal, B. Liu, H.W. Lauw, Detecting product review spammers using rating behaviors, Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2010, pp. 939–948,.
[25]
M. Motoyama, D. McCoy, K. Levchenko, S. Savage, G.M. Voelker, An analysis of underground forums, Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement Conference, 2011, pp. 71–80.
[26]
A. Mukherjee, B. Liu, N. Glance, Spotting fake reviewer groups in consumer reviews, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2012, pp. 191–200,.
[27]
Ott, M., Choi, Y., Cardie, C., Hancock, J. T., 2011. Finding deceptive opinion spam by any stretch of the imagination. arXiv preprint arXiv:1107.4557.
[28]
Paquet-Clouston, M., Bilodeau, O., 2018. Uncovering the wholesale industry of social media fraud: from botnets to bulk reseller panels
[29]
Paquet-Clouston, M., Décary-Hétu, D., Bilodeau, O., Dupuy, T., 2016. When greed for fame benefits large-scale botnets.
[30]
S. Pastrana, A. Hutchings, A. Caines, P. Buttery, Characterizing eve: analysing cybercrime actors in a large underground forum, International symposium on Research in Attacks, Intrusions, and Defenses, Springer, 2018, pp. 207–227.
[31]
S. Pastrana, A. Hutchings, D.R. Thomas, J. Tapiador, Measuring ewhoring, Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference, 2019.
[32]
S. Pastrana, G. Suarez-Tangil, A first look at the crypto-mining malware ecosystem: a decade of unrestricted wealth, Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2019, pp. 73–86,.
[33]
S. Pastrana, D.R. Thomas, A. Hutchings, R. Clayton, Crimebb: enabling cybercrime research on underground forums at scale, Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference, International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Republic and Canton of Geneva, CHE, 2018, pp. 1845–1854,.
[34]
R.S. Portnoff, S. Afroz, G. Durrett, J.K. Kummerfeld, T. Berg-Kirkpatrick, D. McCoy, K. Levchenko, V. Paxson, Tools for automated analysis of cybercriminal markets, Proceedings of 26th International World Wide Web conference, 2017.
[35]
A. Radford, J. Wu, R. Child, D. Luan, D. Amodei, I. Sutskever, Language models are unsupervised multitask learners, OpenAI Blog 1 (8) (2019) 9.
[36]
N. Ruan, R. Deng, C. Su, GADM: manual fake review detection for O2O commercial platforms, Comput. Secur. 88 (2020) 101657,.
[37]
S. Salamatian, W. Huleihel, A. Beirami, A. Cohen, M. Médard, Why botnets work: distributed brute-force attacks need no synchronization, IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 14 (9) (2019) 2288–2299.
[38]
Q. Scheitle, O. Hohlfeld, J. Gamba, J. Jelten, T. Zimmermann, S.D. Strowes, N. Vallina-Rodriguez, A long way to the top: significance, structure, and stability of internet top lists, Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2018, pp. 78–493,.
[39]
I. Sen, A. Aggarwal, S. Mian, S. Singh, P. Kumaraguru, A. Datta, Worth its weight in likes: towards detecting fake likes on Instagram, Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web Science, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2018, pp. 205–209,.
[40]
F. Sharevski, R. Alsaadi, P. Jachim, E. Pieroni, Misinformation warnings: twitter’s soft moderation effects on COVID-19 vaccine belief echoes, Comput. Secur. 114 (2022) 102577,.
[41]
G. Stringhini, M. Egele, C. Kruegel, G. Vigna, Poultry markets: on the underground economy of twitter followers, Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Workshop on Workshop on Online Social Networks, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2012, pp. 1–6,.
[42]
P. Vallina, V. Le Pochat, A. Feal, M. Paraschiv, J. Gamba, T. Burke, O. Hohlfeld, J. Tapiador, N. Vallina-Rodriguez, Mis-shapes, mistakes, misfits: an analysis of domain classification services, Proceedings of the ACM Internet Measurement Conference, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2020, pp. 598–618,.
[43]
A.H. Wang, Don’t follow me: spam detection in twitter, 2010 International Conference on Security and Cryptography (SECRYPT), 2010, pp. 1–10.
[44]
G. Wang, T. Konolige, C. Wilson, X. Wang, H. Zheng, B.Y. Zhao, You are how you click: clickstream analysis for Sybil detection, 22nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 13), USENIX Association, Washington, D.C., 2013, pp. 241–256. https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity13/technical-sessions/presentation/wang.
[45]
Y. Yao, B. Viswanath, J. Cryan, H. Zheng, B.Y. Zhao, Automated crowdturfing attacks and defenses in online review systems, Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2017, pp. 1143–1158.
[46]
Zarei, K., Farahbakhsh, R., Crespi, N., 2020. How impersonators exploit Instagram to generate fakeengagement? https://doi.org/10.1109/ICC40277.2020.9149431.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Computers and Security
Computers and Security  Volume 124, Issue C
Jan 2023
678 pages

Publisher

Elsevier Advanced Technology Publications

United Kingdom

Publication History

Published: 01 January 2023

Author Tags

  1. Fake engagement services
  2. Social networks
  3. Fraud
  4. Cybercrime
  5. Security economics

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 0
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 02 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

View options

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media